W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > March 2010

Re: SKOS, owl:sameAs and DBpedia

From: Prateek <prateek@knoesis.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:14:24 -0400
Message-ID: <4BAA3A60.2070805@knoesis.org>
To: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
CC: Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>, Pascal Hitzler <pascal.hitzler@wright.edu>
 From the owl primer

"Such an |owl:sameAs| statement indicates that two URI references 
actually refer to the same thing: the individuals have the same "identity"."

Ideally I would imagine since both the URIs are about France the use 
should be owl:sameAs, but won't the use of owl:sameAs enforce that the 
two URIs about France have exactly the same properties in terms of 
population, lat-long,area, ... ?

If the properties differ, is it still ok to use it?
There are plenty of such scenarios on the LOD cloud datasets where the 
owl:sameAs is being used, but the properties of the entities are different.

Thanks,

Prateek

-- 
*Prateek Jain*
PhD Student, Research Assistant
Web: http://prateek-jain.com
Email: prateek@knoesis.org <mailto:prateek@knoesis.org>
Phone: (770) 406-6356


On 3/24/2010 12:01 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Yves Raimond<yves.raimond@gmail.com>  wrote:
>    
>> Hello!
>>
>> We are in the process of rolling out some links to DBpedia over in BBC
>> Programmes. However, we are facing a small issue. We use our own
>> categorisation scheme based on SKOS, and then want to add some sameAs
>> links to DBpedia.
>>
>> For example, we currently publish the following statements:
>>
>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/places/france#place>  a skos:Concept ;
>> a po:Place .
>>
>> And we want to add an extra statement:
>>
>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/places/france#place>  owl:sameAs
>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/France>.
>>
>> Is that an issue? Should we drop SKOS altogether if we go on with
>> that, or should we use skos:exactMatch instead of owl:sameAs?
>>      
> see also http://wiki.foaf-project.org/w/term_focus
>
> I'm running out of excuses for not having added this already...
>
> Dan
>
>    




Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 16:15:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:25 UTC